PRE - FEASIBILITY STUDY

HYDRO SCHEME DEVELOPMENT ON COED GWERN STREAM

Client: CAT Holdings Plc Consultant: Nick Jeffries, Engineer

CONTENTS
Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. INTRODUCTION. 6 2. REPORT STRUCTURE.. 6 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 6 4. SURVEY DATA ...10 Topographical survey Hydrological survey 5. SYSTEM DESIGN. 11 Civil Works Electro-mechanical Equipment Grid Connection 6. SYSTEM OPTIONS. 13 Methodology Summary of Turbine Options Optimising the system Turbine Choice Pre-fabricated options 7. COSTS v. REVENUE19 Revenue System Costs Errors How payback period may be reduced 8. CONCLUSIONS 24 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A - Topographical and Hydrological Survey Data B - Typical Run-of the River Arrangements C - Detailed Spreadsheets D - Expected Feed in Tariffs E - Performance Envelopes for Different Turbine Types F - Efficiencies of turbines at partial flows G Performance of Cross Flow Turbines at partial flow

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

2|Page

List of Figures, Tables and Photos Site Location Plan Photo 1 Photo 2 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3a Figure 3b Figure 4 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Typical section of stream with natural cascades and underlying bedrock Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site Basic Layout of Civils Structures Process to determine power/energy output for different systems Energy v. flow at different pipe diameters Power v. flow at different pipe diameters Energy Output v Flow from Hydra and Low Flow Data Key Characteristics of Coed Gwern Stream Flow Data for Coed Gwern Stream Small v Large Turbine Pros and Cons Typical Design flows v CFs for micro-hydro-systems Power, annual energy output, penstock diameters and design flows Optimization of system for max annual energy output Specific Speeds including approx. runner diameter for impulse turbines Comparison of energy output from Francis and Cross Flow Annual Revenue - ROCs v Feed-In Tariff Annual Revenue for different penstock diameters Estimated Costs for different system options Costs v benefits for choosing bigger systems

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

3|Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The site proposed by the Client for the possible development of a hydro scheme, to generate annual cash revenue through sales of energy to the National Grid, is attractive from the very outset. This is due to the Clients ownership of the land adjacent to the stream, the good vehicle access via a parallel gravel track and through the close proximity of a grid connection. The attractiveness of the potential scheme is further enhanced after a brief desk study and site investigation reveals: Good height difference (head) head difference more than 10m Constant flow average 200l/s Solid bedrock - i.e. good foundation for Civils works. Likely low ecological concerns Imminent introduction of feed in tariff incentives

The characteristics and topography of the site would suit a run-of-the river scheme. This would comprise several structures that divert water from the main stream (while maintaining a compensation flow), remove any debris, convey water to the turbine, and return water back to the stream. The engineering works would include: intake and weir, forebay structure with debris screen, penstock pipe and the powerhouse containing a turbine, generator and control systems. Finally a tailrace is required to return the diverted flow to the stream. To export the power generated to the local grid an inverter will convert the DC to AC current, and a buried/overhead cable connection will convey the energy to the grid. Based on the measured head, distance between intake and powerhouse, annual variations in flow and the choice of penstock pipe it is possible to generate a matrix of power and energy outputs. As the Client wants to maximize annual revenue we can then optimise to suit this governing criterion. Optimization of system for max annual energy output
Pipe Diameter (mm) 250 300 350 400 Peak Power (kW) 4.1 6.3 9.3 10.1 Annual Energy Output (kWh) 19058 24353 27876 30393 Annual revenue 4,383 5,601 6,412 6,990

Turbine choice can be assisted by considering that the stream discharges approximately 80% of its annual volume during a 4 month spatey period. Therefore it is easy to see that for maximum energy output - high efficiency turbines are preferable over turbines that maintain output over a large range of flow. An estimate of costs reveals a range of capital outlays between 40, 000 80,000, from the smallest to the largest options. Pipe costs represent between 36 51% of the four options

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

4|Page

considered. Running costs have been estimated as between 1.5 2.5%of capital costs - giving payback periods between 12.5 and 14 years. These costs and revenues represent an idea of the scale and time duration of the investment. In the detail design stage, these will be firmed up as more accurate data on flow variations and construction costs is collected. A number of ways in which the cost/revenue situation could be improved have been suggested including specifying cheaper materials and equipment, client labour force used to undertake some of the work, scheduling of maintenance in summer, limit output to avoid potential grid connection cost issues, use of recycled materials or materials from other CAT sites, use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and supervise works. If the Client decides to proceed with the project, then flow monitoring should begin immediately. EA, DNO and adjacent landowners should also be contacted at first opportunity, to identify any potential issues.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

5|Page

1. INTRODUCTION
CAT Holdings Ltd (the Client) has recently purchased an area of land in mid-Wales which it plans to develop into a Survival Training venue in preparation for Energy Armageddon. The Client has appointed Nick Jeffries (the Consultant) to assess the potential of developing a hydro scheme on a stream which runs through their site. The Clients wish is that the scheme can generate annual cash revenue that will contribute to the future running costs for the Survival Centre. The desired outcome of this pre-feasibility study is to state whether such a scheme is viable or advisable to describe its main features to estimate potential revenue and anticipated capital and running costs

The result should be that the Client has enough information on which to base a decision whether to develop a micro hydro scheme.

2. REPORT STRUCTURE
The report starts by presenting the results of an initial desk study and site visit carried out by the Consultant. The purpose of this first assessment was to decide quickly whether it was worth proceeding to the more in depth pre-feasibility study i.e. if there were any technical or policy constraints which could fundamentally affect the viability of the scheme. The next section looks in detail at the physical characteristics of the site, particularly its hydrology and topography - important in determining the available flow and head for the future scheme as they are the key parameters for calculating potential energy output. Any likely abstraction limitations set by the local planning authorities will be considered here. Having defined the site - the report will go on to describe the structural components of a micro-hydro scheme and look at various options based on different turbines types and other system components. Each of these options will be analysed to produce estimated annual revenue. Costs will then be estimated by considering capital outlay for installation as well as the anticipated running costs. This information will be presented as a table of cost v revenue for each option that will show the scale of required investment and the approximate payback period. The report will finish by recommending the next steps in the development of the scheme.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

6|Page

3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in a forest near to the A487 above the village of Penterperthog near Machynnleth. The stream flows approximately NW SE down the steep sides of the River Dyfi Valley collecting run-off from its mostly forested catchment. The key characteristics of the stream are set out in Table 1. The section of stream between the proposed intake and powerhouse varies in width between 1.5 3 m and funnels through the forest 2 5 m below the level of the access tracks. The length of this section is about 200m and the fall about 10m. There are a number of natural rock cascades (see photo1) which reveal solid underlying bedrock. The SW side of the stream is generally steeper sided, however along much of it there is a natural shelf which could be used to support the future penstock. Ownership of the project site is on the SW side by the Client and NE side by the Forestry Commission. Access to the site is via forestry track which runs on both sides along the entire section proposed for the scheme. A National Grid overhead power supply cable is located along the A487 about 200-300m below the proposed powerhouse location. Table 1 Coed Gwern Stream Key Characteristics Coed Gwern Stream Name 3 3.5km Stream Length ~ 1 in 10 Fall Pine forest Terrain 3 km2 Catchment Area 2300mm (from Wallingford - Hydra) Rainfall (approx) 1500mm Runoff (approx) ~200l/s Annual mean flow ~5 million cubic metres Total Annual run-off Source: OS maps, initial walkover survey and data from an initial Hydra1 model. Assuming design flow is 50% annual mean, the power output would be 10kW. On this basis as well as the favourable access and grid connection - the Consultant has recommended that the Client proceed to a pre-feasibility study. Environmental The stream runs through land in the SW corner of the Dyfi Forest. The flora is typically pines, other trees, ferns, lichens and mosses (see photo 1). The land is managed on both sides by the forestry commission for timber production. The stream is fast flowing and emanates from run off 3km upstream, and does not seem to have any significant aquatic fauna. All in all the section of stream appear to be of low ecological value and therefore unlikely to produce any significant issue in an Environmental Assessment, beyond the standard requirement of maintaining a base flow throughout the year.

Hydra is a flow modeling software from CEH Wallingford.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

7|Page

SiteLocationPlan

Proposed Intake Penstock Powerhouse

Forestry Commission Land

Clients Land

Single Phase Grid Connection G id C ti

Site Access

3 Phase Grid Connection

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Photo 1 Typical section of stream with natural cascades and underlying bedrock

Photo 2 Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

9|Page

4. SURVEY DATA
4.1 Topographical survey A topographical was carried out on the 21st September by the Consultants survey team. The results have been included in Appendix A1. The survey was closed with an agreement of 0.2%, within the allowable 1% error. Based on these results, a static head = 10.2m will be used for the initial design. 4.2 Hydrological survey A hydrological survey was undertaken to understand the flow regime of the stream, and enable an appropriate design flow to be selected for the scheme. If the Client decides to go ahead with the project, flow monitoring will be recommended to allow more precise measurements to be collected. For the survey three approaches were taken: Hydra modeling in the Consultants office using OS Map Data Flow data2 for the nearby Dyfi River was scaled down to the project catchment area. A Low Flow survey was commissioned from CEH Wallingford.

Having compared the data available, in particular the methodology and correlation with Hydra, Low Flow data was selected as the basis of the energy output analysis (see Appendix A2). Table 2: Flow Data for Coed Gwern Stream % Exceedance Q5 Q10 Q20 Q30 Q40 Q50 Q60 Q70 Q80 Q90 Q95 Q99 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99% Flow m3/s 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014

BasinArea: 3.199km2 BaseFlowIndex: 0.44 AnnualMeanFlow: 0.198m3/s Q95: 0.023m3/s Datasource:CEHWallingford

Note: Q95 the flow that the EA will likely require to be kept in the stream for ecological and aesthetic reasons.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/webdata/064001/g.html

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

10 | P a g e

5. SYSTEM DESIGN
Small hydro schemes can be divided into 2 categories: impoundment (i.e. with dam) or runof the-river. For this project there is no natural lake, the valley shape is steep, narrow and forested so an impoundment structure would be inappropriate. Run-of-the-river systems have a number of possible arrangements (see Appendix B). Those that could be considered in this scheme are: (a) open channel, (b) combined channel/penstock or (c) penstock only. Channels are normally only suitable for countries where labour is cheap compared to pipe costs, or for a particular combination of topography, river alignment and terrain. For this project the most appropriate system would be for a penstock only fed by an intake/diversion structure and piping water directly to the powerhouse. 5.1 Civil Works Civils works are those structures required to divert water from the main stream (while maintaining a compensation flow), remove any debris, convey water to the turbine, and return water back to the stream: Intake and weir controls the amount of water taken from the stream Forebay structure and screen removes debris and delivers water to the penstock Penstock pipe that conveys water to the turbine. Needs to be able to withstand the pressure of the water plus an allowance for surge pressure. Powerhouse contains the turbine, generator and control systems Tailrace returns the water to the river

Figure 1 Basic Layout of Civils Structures

Source: http://www.energyhimalaya.com/sources/images/ Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

11 | P a g e

5.2 Electro-mechanical Equipment A turbine and generator convert the energy of the flowing water into electricity. The equipment will be located in the powerhouse. The shaft speed of the turbine should be 1500 or 3000RPM to match the frequency of the grid (50 Hz). If it does not, then there will be a requirement for a gearbox or for a belt drive between the turbine and generator. Turbine types are discussed in section 6.4. Generators can be either the more expensive synchronous type or for small systems the cheaper asynchronous or induction type. The powerhouse will also contain electrical wiring, a control system, and potentially an inverter (see next section) and transformer to match the electricity output to the frequency and voltage of the grid. 5.3 Grid Connection The nearest grid location appears to be a single phase line on the main road serving the buildings at the entrance to the site. There is also a 3-phase power line on the other side of the Dyfi River (see Site Location Plan and Photo 2). There will need to be either an overhead or buried cable connecting the powerhouse to the nearest junction box of the grid. If a synchronous generator is used a grid tie inverters (or synchronous inverters) will need to be included to convert DC to AC current and synchronise output allowing it to feed into the grid. If an inductor generator is specified (more likely) then either an electronic soft start or mechanical drive will be required to get the generator up to synchronization speed and then a DC-AC inverter to allow a connection. Before the initial connection, assuming the system output is below 16A/phase3, an approval process will need to be undertaken by the DNO to check it conforms to the G83/1 Regulations.

Equivalent to approximately 11kW output for 400V 3-Phase generator.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

12 | P a g e

6. SYSTEM OPTIONS
The sizing of a micro-hydro system will be determined mainly by the Clients intended end use for the electricity generated. For a standalone system where electricity is used only in local buildings or processes, a smaller turbine may be selected that provides a steady supply for a longer period of the year, whereas for a grid connected system where all of the electricity is exported, a different system may be specified. Table 3 sets out the advantages and disadvantages at the extremes of each sites potential generation range. Table 3 Comparison of Small v Large Turbine
Turbine Size (kW) (proportional to max possible output) Advantages -More efficient -Peak output higher -In seasonal countries output may match demand curve -Greater overall electricity output -Good for standalone systems -Provides a more consistent supply of electricity -Cheaper -Higher capacity factor Disadvantages - More expensive -Lower capacity factor4 -Longer periods of nongeneration

Large

Small

-Less efficient - Requirement for ballast resistor or other way of dumping energy

For this project the Client has stated that the intention is to sell all the energy produced to the local grid to gain as much cash revenue as possible. Therefore the governing factor for turbine sizing will be: Maximize total annual energy (kWh) output

6.1 Methodology The selection of the correct turbine size is carried out using an iterative process (see fig 2) that calculates power (kW) output and the corresponding energy outputs (kWh) for a range of design flows. The scope of the analysis is expanded by considering different pipe diameters (D) for particular flows. Varying D will change the working head, H, driving the design flow thereby changing the power and energy output. The result is a matrix of maximum turbine power output, annual energy production and pipe diameter which enables revenue and system costs to be estimated thus allowing the cost-benefits of different systems to be compared (see Appendix C).

Capacity Factor = [Energy Generated/yr (kWh/yr)]/[Installed Capacity (kW) x 8760]

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

13 | P a g e

Figure 2 Process to determine power/energy output for different systems

If we adopt the British Hydro Associations guideline5: for a good return on investment on micro-hydro systems aim for a capacity factor (CF) of 50 70% This corresponds approximately to the design flows shown in table 4: Table 4 Typical Design flows v CFs for micro-hydro-systems CF DESIGN FLOW (Qo)
Q mean 0.75 Q mean 0.5 Q mean 0.33 Q mean source: BHA 40% 50% 60% 70%

We can now begin to calculate power and energy outputs.

5

Pg. 10 Mini Hydro Guide, BHA

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

14 | P a g e

6.2 Summary of Turbine Options Table 5 below is a summary of the key outputs from the analysis (for detailed spreadsheets Appendix 3). The highlighted values are the maximum annual revenue for each pipe diameter at the specified flow. Table 5 Power, annual energy output, penstock diameters and design flows
Design Flow (% Qmean) Pipe Diameter (mm) 250 280 300 350 400 Max Power (kW) 0.0 0.5 4.8 10.4 12.8 100% Annual Output (kWh) 0 1244 10912 23782 29338 Max Power (kW) 0.1 4.9 6.8 9.3 10.4 75% Annual Output (kWh) 160 13636 18889 25884 28903 Max Power (kW) 4.0 5.6 6.2 7.0 7.4 50% Annual Output (kWh) 14706 20459 22702 25688 26976 Max Power (kW) 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.0 33% Annual Output (kWh) 17735 19955 20821 21973 22470

Notes: 1. An abstraction regime limited turbine flow to 50% above Q95. This is more rigorous, than typical limits of 25% to ADF, and 50% above ADF. 2. The pipe diameters selected were those sizes commonly available from pipe suppliers 3. Assumed partial flow efficiency 75% - in later calculations this is further refined to match established performance curves. 6.3 Optimising the system If we plot the relationship between annual energy output (figure 3a) and peak power output (figure 3b) against flow for each of the pipe diameters, we see that maximum annual energy is actually achieved at the optimum flow conditions shown in Table 6. Table 6 Optimization of system for max annual energy output:
Pipe Diameter (mm) 250 300 350 400 Optimum Flow (cumecs) 0.063 0.09 0.132 0.132 % QMean Peak Power (kW) 3.9 5.8 8.7 9.5 Net Head (m) 8.08 8.55 8.65 9.43

32% 45% 67% 67%

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

15 | P a g e

Figure 3a Energy v. flow at different pipe diameters

Energy Output v Flow
35000
Annual Energy (kWh)

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Flow (cumecs)

Figure 3b Power v. flow at different pipe diameters

Power v Flow
16 14 12 10
9.5kW 8.7kW 5.8kW 3.9kW

Power (kW)

8 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Flow (cumecs)

400mm

350mm

300mm

250mm

An interesting and useful result from this optimization stage is that in most cases, as annual energy output reaches its maximum value, peak power output has reduced. The corollary of this is a smaller turbine (less cost) and larger output (more revenue).
Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

16 | P a g e

6.4 Turbine Choice The type of turbine is based on a number of factors but can be narrowed down by considering the available head in the system: Low head sites Francis, Propeller, Kaplan Low - Medium head Crossflow, Banki High head Pelton, Turgo

The precise selection of turbine within the overall design is an important step to realizing the optimum potential from the scheme. To assist in this process graphical tools can be used such as the performance envelope (see Appendix E); or a conceptual quantity called specific speed, Ns , that is a function of turbine shaft speed (RPM), power output and head: Ns = 1.2 RPM kW H1.25 For Ns = 12 - 30 Pelton; 20 - 70 Turgo; 20 - 80 Crossflow; 80 - 400 Francis; 340 - 1000 Propellor and Kaplan. Table 7 Specific Speeds including approx. runner diameter for impulse turbines
Shaft Speed (RPM) Pipe Diameter (mm) 250 300 350 400 Approx. Runner Diameter (mm) 400 70 79 97 92 280 600 104 119 146 138 186 800 139 158 194 184 140 1000 174 198 243 230 112 1500 261 297 364 344 75

The results suggest either a Francis or Crossflow turbine, however there are significant overlaps between different turbine types and therefore other factors need to be considered to refine the choice, such as: Cost Availability Flow variability Performance of turbine at variable flow rates

Crossflow turbines are accepted as cheaper to fabricate due to their comparatively simpler structure. Although their efficiency at peak output is lower than other turbine types, they have a better performance over a range of flow conditions compared (see Appendix G). Francis
Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

17 | P a g e

turbines have a higher efficiency in the 60 100% Design flow region, but their performance drops off sharply below 50% design flow. If we apply the efficiencies from the efficiency v. flow graphs (appendix F) to the design data for the optimum conditions (table 6), we can compare outputs from Francis and Cross Flow turbines: Table 8 Comparison of Outputs from Francis and Cross Flow
Francis 400mm 350mm 300mm 250mm kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW 30393 10.1 27876 9.3 24353 6.3 19058 4.1 Crossflow 29877 9.0 27404 8.3 22794 5.5 17976 3.7 5.7% 6.4% 1.7% % Difference 1.7%

As water flow corresponds to power (kW) and volume discharged corresponds to energy output (kWh), then knowing that our stream discharges approximately 80% of its annual volume during a 4 month spatey (high flow) period of the year it is easy to see that for maximum energy output - high efficiency at higher flow is more important than maintaining output at lower flows. 6.5 Off the shelf options A number of manufacturers have responded to the increase in demand for micro- turbines by producing a number of low cost, modular, off the shelf systems using standardized parts for fabrication. Examples of such systems include Toshiba E-Kids6 and The Ossberger Turbine7. The advantages claimed are: Flexible application Rapid assembly Simple installation Lower construction costs Reduced O and M costs

These are fairly innovative systems, which in the case of Toshiba may still not be competitive in the European market as they are only assembled in Japan. However if demand in Europe continues to increase, it may mean that these systems become viable when the project reaches detail design stage.

6 7

http://www.tic.toshiba.com.au/product_brochures_and_reference_lists/ekids.pdf http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

18 | P a g e

7. COSTS v. REVENUE (for detailed calculations refer to Appendix C)

7.1 Revenue The potential revenue from generating renewable energy is set to increase significantly as the new feed-in tariff (FIT) incentive scheme is due to come into effect in April 2010, replacing the existing ROC8 scheme. FITs oblige utility companies to pay a premium rate set by the government, for each kWh produced by RE systems. The rate is significantly above the market rate for conventional power generation (see Appendix D for provisional rates). The effect on potential revenues for a range of annual kWh outputs is set out in Table 9 based on a FIT rate of 17p/kWh compared to the existing ROC system that pays 2 ROCs for every MWh of electricity. ROCs currently sell at about 45/ROC (ref: http://www.nfpa.co.uk/ auctionprices.html). At these rates the potential increase in revenue amounts to 53%. Table 9 Annual Revenue ROCs v Feed-In Tariff
REVENUE kWh/year 10000 20000 40000 80000 100000 ROCs Value 900 1,800 3,600 7,200 9,000 Feed-in Tariff (17p/kWh) 1,700 3,400 6,800 13,600 17,000 Electricity (6p/kWh) 600 1,200 2,400 4,800 6,000 ROC 1,500 3,000 6,000 12,000 15,000 FIT 2,300 4,600 9,200 18,400 23,000

If we apply FIT to Table 6, we can generate a table of annual revenue for our optimum conditions: Table 10 Annual Revenue for different penstock diameters
Pipe Diameter (mm) 250 300 350 400 Peak Power (kW) 4.1 6.3 9.3 10.1 Annual Energy Output (kWh) 19058 24353 27876 30393 Annual revenue 4,383 5,601 6,412 6,990

Assumptions 1. 4% reduction on final output for breakdown or maintenance days 2. Turbine efficiency at peak output 90% Francis; 80% Cross flow 3. Partial flow efficiencies see table in Appendix G 4. Gear box/belt drive efficiency 97%
8

Renewable Obligation Certificate

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

19 | P a g e

5. Generator efficiency 95% 6. Grid tie inverter efficiency 95% (from Fronius see Appendix E) 7.2 System Costs v. Revenue In order to analyse the financial viability of a hydro scheme it is necessary to compare revenue to costs. Costs can be divided into: Capital costs Running Costs Annual revenue

At the pre-feasibility stage it is difficult to ascribe precise costs to all elements of the design and operation. However it is possible to start building up a first estimate - by costing some key items accurately, comparing to similar completed projects and using established industry guidelines. This will at least enable options to be compared and the scale of required investment to be understood: Table 11 Cost for different system options
Peak Power Output (kW) Pipe Diameter CAPITAL Planning Design Management and Finance 215m pressure water pipe Other Civil Works Electro- Mechanical Distribution of Electricity Contingency % Capital 5,000 1,500 15,171 8,000 4,152 4,000 3,782 41,605 5,000 1,500 23,753 8,000 6,886 4,000 4,914 54,053 5,000 1,500 30,506 10,000 9,006 4,000 6,001 66,013 5,000 1,500 38,246 10,000 9,781 4,000 6,853 75,379 4.1 250mm 6.8 300mm 9.3 350mm 10.1 400mm

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

10%

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

RUNNING Insurance Annual Inspection Maintenance Rates Administration Cost per year REVENUE Expected annual revenue Less Running Costs Pay back (yrs)

0.5% Fixed Fixed 0.4% Fixed

208.02 150.00 300.00 166.42 55.00 879

270.27 150.00 300.00 216.21 55.00 991

330.07 150.00 300.00 264.05 55.00 1,099

376.90 150.00 300.00 301.52 55.00 1,183

4,164 3,285 12.7

5,321 4,330 12.5

6,091 4,992 13.2

6,640.87 5,457 13.8

Assumptions
Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

20 | P a g e

1. C1, C2, C6 and R2, R3 and R5 assumed to be the same for all options. 2. C3 Class B U-PVC pipe from - http://www.epco-plastics.com/ 3. C5 includes Turbo-generatorset (http://www.swithenbanks.co.uk/); grid tie inverter (http://www.brightgreenenergy.co.uk/fronius_inverters.asp) and an allowance for control systems. 4. C1, C4, C6, C7 have been estimated and scaled according to size o f scheme. 5. Overall running costs guided by industry norm of 1-2% of capital cost/year for running costs. 6. Insurance and Rates percentages adapted from DTI, 1999 The above economic analysis, which is a fairly cautious, straight-line payback calculation, has been carried out to demonstrate the basic attractiveness of the scheme. The Client now has a better appreciation of the scale of investment and the duration involved to recoup this investment. By way of validating our estimates the Consultant is aware of a similar (9.5 kW) scheme9 in Northern Ireland on a site which had particular special structural cost issues that cost 78, 000 to install and commission. If time and scale is acceptable to the Client, then the next project stage should include a more sophisticated analysis that incorporates accurate costs based on actual quotations and measured drawings as well as the application of discount and bank interest rates. Table 9 shows the kind of data that may be considered in such an analysis. Table 12 Costs v benefits for choosing bigger systems
4.1kW Pipe costs as % of overall costs Revenue as % of capital costs Increase in capital cost from cheapest option expressed as % Increase in revenue compared to cheapest option expressed as % 36% 10.0% 6.8kW 44% 9.8% 12,448 29.9% 1,157 27.8% 9.3kW 46% 9.2% 24,408 45.2% 1,927 46.3% 10.1kW 51% 8.8% 33,774 51.2% 2,477 59.5%

Designed and constructed by NewMills Hydro, Carrickfergus, N.I. Cost and size of scheme provided by Managing Director of New Mills Terry MacGuire during phone conversation on Fri 27th Nov. Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

21 | P a g e

7.3 Errors Flow Annual energy output is sensitive to small changes in the variables used to calculate it and also in the way the data is presented. This is illustrated when comparing the effect of using flow data from Low Flow model compared to Hydra model when calculating energy. Both sets of data are presented as a series of stepped increments (see Appendix A2), the difference being that more steps have been included in the Hydra data set. For each data set a different optimum flow and overall energy output is returned: Hydra 0.140 31522 LowFlow Difference 0.132 6.1% 30622 2.9%

OptimumFlow AnnualEnergyOutput(kWh) Fig 4 presents this graphically:

Figure 4 Energy Output v Flow from Hydra and Low Flow Data

Comparison of Energy Output v Flow for Hydra and Low Flow

35000 Annual Energy (kWh)

30000

25000

400mm
20000

15000

10000

250mm

5000

0 0 400mm 0.05 250mm 0.1 0.15 0.2 250mm Hydra 0.25 0.3 0.35 Flow (cumecs) 0.4

400mm Hydra

This result is more surprising if one considers the overall volume discharged from the Hydra model is 0.11% less than the Low Flow model i.e. less potential energy is generated. The issue highlights the need for accurate flow monitoring during the project development period.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

22 | P a g e

Pipe Length The pipe length was estimated using a distance measuring wheel along the proposed penstock route which is steep, forested and difficult to access. Pipe costs are significant in the overall costing of the project (250mm - 70/m; 400mm 180/m), so establishing accurately the length of pipe will be an important part of the next design stage. 7.3 How payback period may be reduced The cost/revenue figures presented in section 7.2 are quite cautious; there are several ways in which the situation could be improved: Pipe costs based on information available at this time. Cheaper pipes may be available. As land is private with no vehicle loading, penstock pipe could be laid partly above ground thereby reducing excavation/backfilling costs. If plant and labour is available Client can potentially undertake following works (with supervision): intake works, installation of penstock pipe, construction of powerhouse and tailrace Calculations include 4% downtime for maintenance i.e. 15 days. If maintenance is carried out in low flow period this will have only small effect on energy output. Limit output to ~3.7kW (Single phase) and ~11 kW (3 phase) i.e. less than 16A/phase, thereby avoid potential grid connection cost issues. Specification of inductor generator over synchronous generator will be cheaper and will not require expensive grid tie inverter Use of recycled materials or materials from other CAT sites Use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and supervise works.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

23 | P a g e

8. CONCLUSIONS
The site has several characteristics that point favourably to the development of a microhydro scheme: Site owned by Client Easy access for construction Proximity to grid connection Likely low ecological concerns Reasonable head difference with constant flow. Solid bedrock allows for good foundation for Civils works.

The situation is further enhanced by the expected introduction of the feed-in tariffs in April 2010 which will create an even more economically sound case for developing the project. The estimate of potential revenue from electricity sales against estimated costs for four different systems suggests a payback period of 12.5 14 years for an investment between 40,000 - 80, 000. This does not include an allowance for discount rates.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to develop the scheme further the following actions are recommended: Start collecting accurate flow data. If a measuring weir is used, this can be incorporated into final design of intake works Determine size of investment available Think clearly how you would like energy to be used in the future if eventually energy is to be used on site this will effect the final design Contact Environmental Agency to establish any potential ecological constraints Contact DNO to advise of plans Contact Forestry Commission

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

24 | P a g e

Bibliography 1. British Hydro Association (BHA), A Guide to UK Mini-Hydro Developments Version 1.2, Jan 2005. 2. T.Kirk (1999), Small Scale hydro-power in UK. CIWEM, Water and Environmental Journal. Vol 13. Issue 3. Pages 207 212. 3. DTI, 1999 - New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century: Supporting Analysis, - http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file21102.pdf 4. Boyle, G (2004) Renewable Energy Power for a Sustainable Future. Second Edition. Oxford Press.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

25 | P a g e

Appendix A Topographical and Hydrological Survey Data A1 -Levels UPSURVEY Forward Back 3.98 0.1825 3.8375 0.1375 3.702 0.375 3.925 0.55 3.315 1.415 0.125 3.715 0.735 TOTAL 2.91 Height 3.7975 3.7 3.327 3.375 1.9 3.59 2.175 10.3345 DOWNSURVEY Forward Back 2.91 0.31 3.51 0.325 1.2325 3.842 0.0325 3.98 0.0325 3.918 0.17 2.8275 1.26 1.328 2.77 2.814 Height 2.6 3.185 2.6095 3.9475 3.8855 2.6575 1.51 1.486 10.311

A2 - Low Flow and Hydra Stream Data LowFlow % Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99% Flowm3/s 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 Total Volumem3 1050149 734789 905083 637027 469886 359510 274363 204984 141912 94608 36266 17660 4926239 % Exceedance 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% 10.1% 15.0% 20.0% 29.1% 39.7% 50.0% 60.3% 70.9% 80.0% 89.9% 95.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99.0% Hydra Flowm3/s 0.8 0.7 0.58 0.41 0.33 0.26 0.2 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 Total Difference Volumem3 504576 220752 365818 659418 509937 409968 573955 501422 357303 292339 233997 143489 93662 32167 12614 6307 3154 4920877 0.11%

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

26 | P a g e

Appendix B Typical Run-of the River Arrangements

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

27 | P a g e

Appendix C Detailed Spreadsheets

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

28 | P a g e

EnergyOutputEstimation,400mmOptimum Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 400 215 10.3 0.79 9.43 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.132 cumecs 10% 0.013 cumecs

Qmean FlowQ95 50%above TurbineFlow Flowm3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Compensation Flow(cumecs) 0.534 0.334 0.155 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.045 0.030 0.023 0.014 PowerOutput Poweroutput (kW) (kWh) 9.5 9.5 9.5 5.7 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30622 29397 0.06 0.17 6,761 4141 4141 8281 5013 3529 2549 1792 1176 0 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

EnergyOutputEstimation,350mmOptimum Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 350 215 10.3 1.50 8.65 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.132 cumecs 10% 0.013 cumecs

Qmean FlowQ95 50%above TurbineFlow Flowm3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Compensation Flow(cumecs) 0.534 0.334 0.155 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.045 0.030 0.023 0.014 PowerOutput Poweroutput (kW) (kWh) 8.7 8.7 8.7 5.2 3.7 2.7 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28086 26963 0.06 0.17 6,201 3798 3798 7595 4598 3237 2338 1644 1079 0 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

EnergyOutputEstimation,350mm,75%Qmean Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 350 215 10.3 1.85 8.26 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.149 cumecs 10% 0.015 cumecs

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

FlowQ95 50%above TurbineFlow Flowm3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.149 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.75xQmean Compensation PowerOutput Poweroutput Flow(cumecs) (kW) (kWh) 0.518 0.318 0.155 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.045 0.030 0.023 0.014 9.3 9.3 7.4 5.0 3.5 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26962 25884 0.06 0.17 5,953 4082 4082 6479 4393 3092 2233 1571 1031 0 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

EnergyOutputEstimation,300mmOptimum Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 300 215 10.3 1.59 8.55 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.090 cumecs 10% 0.009 cumecs

Qmean FlowQ95 50%above TurbineFlow Flowm3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 Compensation Flow(cumecs) 0.576 0.376 0.197 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.034 0.030 0.023 0.014 PowerOutput Poweroutput (kW) (kWh) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.2 3.7 2.6 1.9 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 23554 22612 0.06 0.17 5,201 2561 2561 5121 4547 3201 2312 1626 1067 559 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

EnergyOutputEstimation,300mm,50%Qmean Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 300 215 10.3 1.88 8.23 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.099 cumecs 10% 0.010 cumecs

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Flowm3/s 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014

FlowQ95 (m3/sec) 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000

TurbineFlow 50%aboveQ95 (cumecs) 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.5xQmean Compensation PowerOutput Poweroutput Flow(cumecs) (kW) (kWh) 0.567 0.367 0.188 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.034 0.030 0.023 0.014 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.0 3.5 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 23647 22702 0.06 0.17 5,221 2710 2710 5420 4375 3080 2224 1564 1027 538 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

EnergyOutputEstimation,250mmOptimum Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 250 215 10.3 2.02 8.08 sq.km mm mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.063 cumecs 10% 0.006 cumecs

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Flowm3/s 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014

FlowQ95 (m3/sec) 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000

TurbineFlow 50%aboveQ95 (cumecs) 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.5xQmean Compensation PowerOutput Poweroutput Flow(cumecs) (kW) (kWh) 0.603 0.403 0.224 0.139 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.034 0.030 0.023 0.014 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18807 18055 0.06 0.17 4,153 1694 1694 3387 3387 3387 2184 1536 1008 528 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine Generator Gridtieinverter max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 95% 97%

EnergyOutputEstimation,250mm,33%Qmean Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 250 215 10.3 2.13 7.96 sq.km mm mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.065 cumecs 10% 0.007 cumecs

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

Flowm3/s 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014

FlowQ95 (m3/sec) 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000

TurbineFlow 50%aboveQ95 (cumecs) 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.5xQmean Compensation PowerOutput Poweroutput Flow(cumecs) (kW) (kWh) 0.601 0.401 0.222 0.137 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.034 0.030 0.023 0.014 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.5 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18471 17732 0.06 0.17 4,078 1720 1720 3440 3440 2977 2150 1512 992 520 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine Generator Gridtieinverter max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 95% 97%

EnergyOutputEstimation,400mm,Qmean Catchmentarea AnnualmeanFlow Pipediameter Pipelength(m) StaticHead(m) HeadLoss(Pipes/Fittings) Nethead(m) 3.199 0.198 400 215 10.3 1.63 8.51 sq.km cumecs mm m m m m DesignTurbineFlow Minturbineflow(%ofmaxflow) Min.turbineflow 0.198 cumecs 10% 0.020 cumecs

%Exceedance 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 99%

FlowQ95 50%above Flowm3/s (m3/sec) Q95 0.666 0.466 0.287 0.202 0.149 0.114 0.087 0.065 0.045 0.03 0.023 0.014 0.643 0.443 0.264 0.179 0.126 0.091 0.064 0.042 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.322 0.222 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000

TurbineFlow (cumecs) 0.198 0.198 0.132 0.090 0.063 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Qmean Compensation PowerOutput Poweroutput Flow(cumecs) (kW) (kWh) 0.468 0.268 0.155 0.113 0.086 0.069 0.055 0.044 0.045 0.030 0.023 0.014 12.8 12.8 7.6 5.2 3.6 2.6 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30560 29338 0.06 0.17 6,748 5603 5603 6670 4523 3184 2299 1617 1061 0 0 0 0 kWh/yr kWh/yr

Q95(m3/sec) Qmean(m3/sec) Efficiency Turbine GearBox Generator max

0.023 0.198 partialflow 75%

TOTAL Breakdown/maintenance(4%) Price/kWh Feedintariff AverageGross

84% 97% 95%

Appendix D - Expected Feed in Tariffs TECHNOLOGY Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Biomass Biomass Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro PV PV PV PV PV PV Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind SCALE Electricity only CHP <50kW 50kW - 5MW CHP <10kW 10100kW 100kW1MW 1 - 5MW <4kW (new build) <4kW (retrofit) 4 - 10kW 10100kW 100kW5MW Stand alone system <1.5kW 1.515kW 1550kW 50250kW 250500kW 500kW5MW 250500kW 500kW5MW PROPOSED INITIAL TARIFF (p/kWh) 9 11.5 9 4.5 9 17 12 8.5 4.5 31 36.5 31 28 26 26 30.5 23 20.5 18 16 4.5 16 4.5

Source: www.lowcarboneconomy.com

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

29 | P a g e

Appendix E Performance Envelopes for Different Turbine Types

Figure 3 Performance envelope for different turbines

Source: DBERR Report 2004 and BHA 2008

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

30 | P a g e

Appendix F Efficiencies of turbines at partial flows

Source: Kirk, 1999 Table of partial flow efficiencies - derived from above graph Qmax/Qo 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 18% 10% Francis 90% 90% 90% 89% 86% 84% 80% 73% 62% 0% 0% Crossflow 80% 82% 83% 85% 85% 854% 84% 80% 70% 65% 30%

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

31 | P a g e

Appendix G Performance of Cross Flow Turbines at partial flow

Source: http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro

32 | P a g e